justin_tx_16 Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 "P2P United, a peer-to-peer industry trade group that includes Grokster, StreamCast Networks, Limewire and other file-trading software companies, said Wednesday it had offered to reimburse Brianna Lahara and her mother's payment to the Recording Industry Association of America. Lahara's mother agreed Tuesday to settle copyright infringement charges on behalf of her daughter. 'We do not condone copyright infringement, but someone has to draw the line to call attention to a system that permits multinational corporations with phenomenal financial and political resources to strong-arm 12-year-olds and their families in public housing the way this sorry episode dramatizes," said Adam Eisgrau, the executive director of P2P United.'" http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5074227.html?tag=fd_ots Just thought some of you guys would be glad to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geo1 Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 I had already wondered if some good samaritan, or other benefactor had agreed to underwrite the settlement since it occurred so quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 Again... I stand firm... She broke the law. Cut and dry. We can't feel sorry for one person and then stick it to another... That thinking is simply not fair. Are these people who are bailing her family out of trouble going to help all the other people too? If not, why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curmudgeon Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 RIAA headlines to come: RIAA sues teenage mother and unborn fetus ..... The mother file-swapped therefore the fetus is an accessory, RIAA lawyer files to place hold on child's trust fund account ... Toddler sued by RIAA, Fisher-Price to be next ..... It seems that the youngster duplicated some of Metallica's chords and riffs on a Tuff Stuff® Sing-Along Karaoke Tape Recorder in a public forum (kindergarten playground) and was financially compensated (gum, candy, pencils). RIAA lawyer states that if you let one person get away with it, society will implode ... RIAA offers amnesty program ..... You have to uninstall any file sharing software on your computer and then publish a letter-to-the-editor in your local paper stating that you're a felon and are in need of a flogging. Then destroy any and all CDR's you've made, even if they don't have music on them. Delete all of the music from your computer (legal or not - remember, this is punishment), remove your hard drive and beat it with a hammer. Next, take the hammer to all of your current CD's so that you can do the right thing and repurchase them (to help the artists, of course). Lastly, destroy any CD or DVD burners you may own - they are inherently evil. Also, if you own a VCR, tape recorder, or DAT please destroy those too (we're still P.O.'d that we didn't take care of this issue sooner). Draw up an affidavit certifying that you have done all of this, sign it: I am a guilty wanker and mail it to us (at your expense, of course). RIAA lawyers state that those in the amnesty program may still have to pay fines but "we'll handle the court costs" ... RIAA suing estate of Mother Theresa ..... Developing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frzninvt Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 ROFLAO (Rolling on the Floor Laughing My *** Off) Right On. Absolutely ridiculous legal or not. Gee were not making enough profit off our 0.20 CD's that were selling for $20 apiece, please help us. Let them eat dirt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndyKlipschFan Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 I saw an industry article out of a trade publication like pro sound or something like that. It looked at the true actual cost....including inside lyrics...packaging and shipping and taxes... More like 38 cents. But still, not enough profit from a 38 cent CD sold at retail at 20 dollars? Come on!! FYI, a cassette, VCR tape, or even an LP with the bigger cradboard sleeve, with inner sleeve graphics too, were all more expensive (real cost)....yet CD's cost wayyyy much more. Go figure!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 .38 cents may be the cost to produce a CD once it has been mastered sure, but what about all the other costs. You need to take into consideration all the poeple who have to be paid that made the CD happen in the first place. The recording engineers, marketing people, any and all techies, the band and I am sure the list goes on and on. These record companies have overhead just like any other compnay. Do I feel that CDs are overpriced? Sure, but I am also smart enough to know that if a CD costs $20.00 and the cost to create a CD is .38 cents, $19.62 does not go directly into the record companies profit. I have heard right here on this very form people stick up for the price of Klipsch speakers, saying that Klipsch is in the business to make money. Why is ok for Klipsch to make money but not the record companies? On the otherhand as I mentioned, I do belive that CDs are too expensive. I do agree that there has to be a bit of greed involved in the pricing. Even though it is against the law for people to rip and share music, I do believe some positives will come out of this and lower priced CD's will prevail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 I'm 100% with m00n on this one. Strong arming a 12yr old? Hardly. When will people learn that intellectual property is still property, and can be sold for whatever the owner feels like. If you break copyright laws you are a thief. Reconcile yourself to that simple fact. If you feel that A particular CD is not worth the asking price, do not buy it. There is a healthy used market for music. It is perfectly legal. File stealing is for the lazy and amoral. Does the shoe fit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 bclarke421 Glad to see someone else can see past "personal opinion" and see this for what it really is. Furthermore, the record companies have been telling people for *YEARS* now that this is illegal behavior. People damn well know by now that this is wrong, yet they still do it thinking to themselves "I will not get caught". So, even though people have been breaking the law and breaking the law, the record companies have been telling people knock it off over and over. It really apauls me when our society gets all upset and cries foul when the record companies finaly do something about it after years of warnings. No, I am sorry but these people who are getting slapped with lawsuits have no reason to complain, they have brought it on themselves... They knew better. Blame the people responsible for your troubles... Yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBB Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 Let them have their discs and eat them too. According to the newest figures released by the Labor Department on 7/3/03, 9.2 million people are now unemployed by adjusted figures and if you include the unemployed who are not receiving any assistance like unemployment compensation or Workman's Comp, the figure is 13.9 million. Between 2000 and 2001, poverty rose to 11.7% of the population, or 32.9 million people, up from 11.3% and 31.6 million. The poverty rate for 2002 was 13.9% equaling about 35.1 million Americans living in poverty with over 14 million of those being CHILDREN. In 2003 the poverty rate is expected to average 14.2% or 35.8 million people. (US CENSUS BUREAU) Im sorry, Buffy. Well have to make it a one can of beans tonight instead of two. Hey! Stop that crying. Things could be a lot worse. There are children being sued by the Recording Industry Association of America out there. Did you download that CD you wanted? You know CDs just dont grow on trees around here. Dont ever lose sight of what your priorities are young lady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curmudgeon Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 Note that even with my parody of the RIAA headlines I do not advocate file swapping or artist's losing control over their intellectual properties. Between my wife and myself we have over 600 retail CD's and I have over 500 LP's, plus a hundred or so cassettes I made in the 70's & 80's. The bulk of the cassettes are copies of my LP's made to play in the car and to cut down on LP wear. And yes, a few of the cassettes were taped from friends albums (gasp). We own a fair amount of music and a lot of it has been obtained used or through clubs due to the ridiculous overpricing of CD's in retail stores, there's not many (single) CD's out there worth $18-20.00. I refuse to subsidize the record companies overpromotion and overpayments to talentless bubble-gum, boy-band, Barbie-doll bands or bad hip-hop posturers (there's nothing wrong with good hip-hop) by paying inflated retail. Especially for older rock, jazz, blues, and classical CD's that have been out for years and should be more competitively priced. Universal Music's latest move to drop prices will hopefully help, paying $10-13.00 for single CD's is no problem at all to me but the record companies can stuff their $20.00 titles and Britney Spears. - The main reason I don't like the RIAA is that their tactics remind me of the marching hammers from "The Wall" . Perhaps the RIAA lawyers could get some red and black uniforms for court days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndyKlipschFan Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 OK, I have to say something too. From your quote.. "When will people learn that intellectual property is still property, and can be sold for whatever the owner feels like. If you break copyright laws you are a thief. Reconcile yourself to that simple fact. If you feel that A particular CD is not worth the asking price, do not buy it." Actually, I am perfect sync with you here. It cost someone to come up with the idea, make it, sell it, etc., etc., and they should be the benefactor of his/her hard labor and very grateful people want it too. It is the next line that totally baffles me: "There is a healthy used market for music. It is perfectly legal." Hmmm It seems that the secondary market you refer to is used CD's. While this is legal, AND, It amazes me that it is... I mean the record company only got paid ONE TIME for this purchase...Same with the artist... Are you not buying for a "service fee" a free copy of someone else's work? This is about as close to stealing IMO too. Our "service fee" online may be a modem, AOL, or cable, dsl, connection too. What is the difference??? In your thinking.. Shouldn't this be perfectly legal too? Hear me out, someone bought a CD and downloaded it to their computer. You copied it down to yours... Same as borrowing a CD from a friend or buying a used one at a record store if you ask me. You are also stealing it. I am amazed in this day and age that with computers and all.. We do not make CD's that are copy proof. Make it a law not to be able too... And if the "LAW" is then broken we could legally say, "Well you broke the law...and we are here to confiscate the actual CD's in question, and then ask for $$ equal to the law...If you really wanted to play CD cop? LOL, I just think the cat is out of the bag too much to do so. (Re engineering the copy protection, etc., etc.) No, I do not see this as happening, nor do I feel it is the right thing to do too. To think someone would actually be a cop looking at everyone as a potential criminal ... wait that is what BMI does...ASCAP too. But a moral question also needs to be asked. Sorry, sometimes these are tough not to put on the board. If we raise our kids to allow them to "Steal" things at a young age... What will they steal as adults? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 ---------------- On 9/11/2003 3:38:10 PM IndyKlipschFan wrote: Hmmm It seems that the secondary market you refer to is used CD's. While this is legal, AND, It amazes me that it is... I mean the record company only got paid ONE TIME for this purchase... ---------------- Same with Klipsch and all the Heritage speakers being sold and purchased. Don't get me wrong, I am not against your point in any way... Just pointing out the same thing goes for Klipsch as well as other companies too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curmudgeon Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 ---------------- On 9/11/2003 3:38:10 PM IndyKlipschFan wrote: It is the next line that totally baffles me: "There is a healthy used market for music. It is perfectly legal." Hmmm It seems that the secondary market you refer to is used CD's. While this is legal, AND, It amazes me that it is... I mean the record company only got paid ONE TIME for this purchase...Same with the artist... Are you not buying for a "service fee" a free copy of someone else's work? This is about as close to stealing IMO too. Our "service fee" online may be a modem, AOL, or cable, dsl, connection too. What is the difference??? In your thinking.. Shouldn't this be perfectly legal too? Hear me out, someone bought a CD and downloaded it to their computer. You copied it down to yours... Same as borrowing a CD from a friend or buying a used one at a record store if you ask me. You are also stealing it. ---------------- I may be incorrect here legally (although probably not morally) but there's nothing wrong with selling used CD's, LP's, or retail cassettes. The artist gets royalties when the original media is sold via retail. Once a person tires of listening to it and wants to unload it there is nothing wrong with selling it as long as no illegal copy has been made. If the persons keeps a copy (CD, tape, MP3, wav, etc.) and sells the original that's wrong, the artist is getting hosed. If the person keeps the original and makes copies for their friends that's also wrong. Selling copies is downright piracy, anyway. If only the original retail media is resold it shouldn't matter, the artist has received their royalty for that particular copy. Essentially, as long as the number of media copies on the street doesn't increase via copying the artist has been paid appropriately. What do they expect you to do with music you no longer want - destroy it or give it away? How about if I buy a basic CD of Duke Ellington/Blues In Orbit and then later buy a MFSL dual layer SACD version. Am I stuck forever with the basic CD or should I be allowed to recoup some money from the purchase? Does the next guy or gal have the right to purchase my old CD? In my mind, private ownership of music falls under different rules then public play: artists get royalties per media copy for private ownership and collect royalties per airplay or per public performance in the public end of it. If it's any different feel free to correct me. I believe computer software can be sold in a similar manner: If uninstalled from your CPU and no copy retained = legal to sell. If the software is not uninstalled from the CPU and/or a copy retained then it's an illegal sale. By the way IndyKlipschFan, this is strictly commentary and not meant to be argumentative with your post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZAKO Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 MOON.... Did you know anything about copyright law when you were 12 yrs, old? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 Sheriff mOOn, Please Sheriff mOOn dont lock us up. Thank you Sheriff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 The RIAA has no business suing anyone other than the companies/persons providing the software & servers to make peer to peer music exchanges/downloads possible, unless it can be proven that the persons downloading are also redistributing the copyrighted material for profit. This whole situation can be handled the same way its currently handled in other musical outlets/venues. In nightclubs/bars for instance, the club has to pay an annual fee to ASCAP and RIAA to have a juke box and/or live music. Part of this fee is SUPPOSED to go to the recording artists (LOL). Therefore, the web sites like Kazza should be paying the fee. You want to download & share? Pay a cover charge just like you do with a live band at a nightclub or 2 bits in the juke box. On the other hand its well known that the music industry itself has been ripping off recording artists for decades. And CDs were supposed to drop dramatically in price too. 20 years later.. Theyre getting exactly what they asked for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 ---------------- On 9/11/2003 5:32:00 PM Maron Horonzak wrote: MOON.... Did you know anything about copyright law when you were 12 yrs, old? ---------------- I see your point, but I don't buy it. In this day in age people know... The point has been made well know over the past few years. If she didn't know, then the mother did and should have informed her daughter. Let say one thing though, while I do think she is fair game, I most likely would have chosen to avoid sueing her myself. Bad publicity for their cuase... Non the less, they do have that right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 ---------------- On 9/11/2003 5:32:34 PM TheEAR wrote: Sheriff mOOn, Please Sheriff mOOn dont lock us up. Thank you Sheriff ---------------- I am in no position to lock you up. I am not Johnny Law. I am just stressing facts, not necessarly opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 IndyKlipschFan- Regarding the reselling of copyrighted material (specifically recordings)- My purchase of a recording at retail grants me the right to "mechanical reproduction". While this is obviously somewhat of an anachronism, it is still indicative of what the my rights are. I may play that recording as many times as I like for private use. I have no right to broadcast or otherwise distribute the content of that recording. I may, however make copies of that recording for my own personal use (ie, backups). These rights are linked to the legal possession of that original copy. If I lend that original copy to a friend, I don't really have the right to play those backups while it is on loan (this is nit-picking, I do admit). But the point is this- if I choose to sell that original copy, the rights to mechanical reproduction are legally transferred to the purchaser. This resale is perfectly legal. Any copies that exist, I would no longer have the right to play. Many of you raise very valid points regarding the practicality of enforcement. There are problems to be solved in this arena. No one in their right mind would argue that point. The record industry has no choice but to get its act together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.